I think people are missing the most important part of the original quote ;

Quote :

"I think the toughest thing was that it put a number of people on to the slow side of the grid.

unquote

THAT is Whitmarsh (sensibly in my opinion) criticising Ferrari for not only "helping" Alonso, but making life more difficult for all the drivers who were shifted from their "rightful" place on the racing line over to the dirty side of the starting grid. THAT is something which shows Whitmarsh has at least some sportsmanlike feeling left.

.

The flip side to that though is, RGs penalty put alot of those people on the dirty side.

So is the Gearbox grid drop unsporting in the first place?

Or say the pole winner got a ten place drop ala Schui. All that qualified on the clean side would go on the dirty side.

Say then the 2nd qualifier (Now pole) had to use their ninth engine.

Would that make the engine swap unsporting? It's all the same effect.

yep, I'd say the blame lies squarely with the track organisers for allowing one side of the starting grid to have such a disadvantage. Surely with today's technology it's not beyond their means to have both sides scrubbed before a race to give everyone an equal chance? The drivers have to fight hard enough to earn their position these days without having the track lottery thrown into the equation

Yeah, my problem with the decision is the heavy external effect it had on the surrounding drivers and teams. Ferrari have a very we'll do what we want and to hell with everyone else attitude. They didn't consider, or considered very little the impact their decision would have on the rest of the grid and just how much it affected other drivers races. Look at Kimi Raikkonen. Compromised start due to dirty side and pushed back a number of places. We know he is a great starter so it could very much have been a different story for him. Ferrari just tiddled on everyone elses bonfire and don't seem at all fazed by it.

er, you realise it didn't affect Kimi, right? He qualified ahead of Felipe.

What do you exactly mean with that and how do you know that "Santander money pays the checks"? Have you any direct link to Ferrari or Santander accountancies? If yes, please share more information.

You know, sponsorship is a common practice in F1 since the late 60s. ALL TEAMS are sponsored by external companies, I still don't see what makes Santander sponsorship of Ferrari different to any other.

I think people are missing the most important part of the original quote ;

Quote :

"I think the toughest thing was that it put a number of people on to the slow side of the grid.

unquote

THAT is Whitmarsh (sensibly in my opinion) criticising Ferrari for not only "helping" Alonso, but making life more difficult for all the drivers who were shifted from their "rightful" place on the racing line over to the dirty side of the starting grid. THAT is something which shows Whitmarsh has at least some sportsmanlike feeling left.

.

The flip side to that though is, RGs penalty put alot of those people on the dirty side.

So is the Gearbox grid drop unsporting in the first place?

Or say the pole winner got a ten place drop ala Schui. All that qualified on the clean side would go on the dirty side.

Say then the 2nd qualifier (Now pole) had to use their ninth engine.

Would that make the engine swap unsporting? It's all the same effect.

yep, I'd say the blame lies squarely with the track organisers for allowing one side of the starting grid to have such a disadvantage. Surely with today's technology it's not beyond their means to have both sides scrubbed before a race to give everyone an equal chance? The drivers have to fight hard enough to earn their position these days without having the track lottery thrown into the equation

The only way to get a track scrubbed in is to run on it and time.

can't mind if it was this thread or another I said that really they need to stop using the formula one weekend as the Tracks Debut.

I think people are missing the most important part of the original quote ;

Quote :

"I think the toughest thing was that it put a number of people on to the slow side of the grid.

unquote

THAT is Whitmarsh (sensibly in my opinion) criticising Ferrari for not only "helping" Alonso, but making life more difficult for all the drivers who were shifted from their "rightful" place on the racing line over to the dirty side of the starting grid. THAT is something which shows Whitmarsh has at least some sportsmanlike feeling left.

.

The flip side to that though is, RGs penalty put alot of those people on the dirty side.

So is the Gearbox grid drop unsporting in the first place?

Or say the pole winner got a ten place drop ala Schui. All that qualified on the clean side would go on the dirty side.

Say then the 2nd qualifier (Now pole) had to use their ninth engine.

Would that make the engine swap unsporting? It's all the same effect.

yep, I'd say the blame lies squarely with the track organisers for allowing one side of the starting grid to have such a disadvantage. Surely with today's technology it's not beyond their means to have both sides scrubbed before a race to give everyone an equal chance? The drivers have to fight hard enough to earn their position these days without having the track lottery thrown into the equation

The only way to get a track scrubbed in is to run on it and time.

can't mind if it was this thread or another I said that really they need to stop using the formula one weekend as the Tracks Debut.

I realise that's the usual way but there must be a technical solution to artificially accelerate the process or use a different tarmac compound, if only just for the grid area. Can't believe it's an impossibility

I don't know if you guys are Massa fans or just Alonso detractors, but what Felipe did gave him credit, he sacrificed himself for his teammate sake. Ferrari lost more than it gained just to remain in the title fight. It's a brave decision and they didn't try to fool anyone with it.

I see so many Sportmanship Professors around but no team managers.

What MW is complaining is that Massa's penalty swapped 5 people on the grid just to help one driver, and that's not fair, that can be used as a double-edged sword. Imagine that in Brazil Webber qualifies fourth and Alonso qualifies fifth, imagine it has just rained and the only dry side is the odd side of the grid, would RBR open Webber's gearbox so that Alonso had to start from the wet side of the track?

I don't know if you guys are Massa fans or just Alonso detractors, but what Felipe did gave him credit, he sacrificed himself for his teammate sake. Ferrari lost more than it gained just to remain in the title fight. It's a brave decision and they didn't try to fool anyone with it.

I see so many Sportmanship Professors around but no team managers.

What MW is complaining is that Massa's penalty swapped 5 people on the grid just to help one driver, and that's not fair, that can be used as a double-edged sword. Imagine that in Brazil Webber qualifies fourth and Alonso qualifies fifth, imagine it has just rained and the only dry side is the odd side of the grid, would RBR open Webber's gearbox so that Alonso had to start from the wet side of the track?

I don't know if they would before, but now they certainly will think about it!

What do you exactly mean with that and how do you know that "Santander money pays the checks"? Have you any direct link to Ferrari or Santander accountancies? If yes, please share more information.

You know, sponsorship is a common practice in F1 since the late 60s. ALL TEAMS are sponsored by external companies, I still don't see what makes Santander sponsorship of Ferrari different to any other.

BTW, Santander sponsors Ferrari AND McLaren, don't forget about it.

thats the funny scenario. Santander join mclaren along with Fernando in 2007. When fernando leave, you'd expect santander leave as well. However, santander value the British market, and hence reduce their sponsorship scale and just remain as premium sponsors.

What do you exactly mean with that and how do you know that "Santander money pays the checks"? Have you any direct link to Ferrari or Santander accountancies? If yes, please share more information.

You know, sponsorship is a common practice in F1 since the late 60s. ALL TEAMS are sponsored by external companies, I still don't see what makes Santander sponsorship of Ferrari different to any other.

BTW, Santander sponsors Ferrari AND McLaren, don't forget about it.

thats the funny scenario. Santander join mclaren along with Fernando in 2007. When fernando leave, you'd expect santander leave as well. However, santander value the British market, and hence reduce their sponsorship scale and just remain as premium sponsors.

Funny world F1 isn't ??

Well, i don't know if it's funny or not, but what is sure is that sponsoring F1 is business and, in the case of major teams, it's BIG business.

That's why I think all those conspirational theories about sponsors interfering race results or the internal operation of teams are BS. Sponsors are not mega-rich fans of a given driver, they are professional people who are in Formula 1 for promoting worldwide their brands, not for cheering their preferred driver.

I realise that's the usual way but there must be a technical solution to artificially accelerate the process or use a different tarmac compound, if only just for the grid area. Can't believe it's an impossibility

I dunno if its possible but when you think Bitumen is basically oil it would probably need a whole new product.

Quote:

thats the funny scenario. Santander join mclaren along with Fernando in 2007. When fernando leave, you'd expect santander leave as well. However, santander value the British market, and hence reduce their sponsorship scale and just remain as premium sponsors.

Funny world F1 isn't ??

Don't forget santander signed a contract with Macca so couldn't just jump ship and leave with alonso. Well they probably could have but would likely have ended up paying for nothing.

Some posters complain about the other drivers who were moved to the dirty side of the track, and make as if that includes everybody on the grid. It only affected those between Massa's initial position and those positioned before his final 11th place.

But also consider it also moved some drivers from the dirty side to the clean side, plus these guys all moved one position forward, so I am sure those guys are sending flowers to Ferrari today.

In my view, the facts are plain and simple. It was done within the rules and totally transparent. If this bothers you, you are going to have to leave your job as you would end up being too busy complaining about a lot of things on this forum. This includes flexible wing cheats, exhaust cheats, engine mapping, and then off course many which we are not aware of but which I am convinced are taking place all the time.

A very important example is also the fact that Red Bull (the worst offender) and others are cheating by spending more than what was agreed on their projects. This alone has a much larger impact on the outcome of affairs than most others.

From my point of view it provided an extension of the championship effort, and will keep me glued to the TV for the last event. If Vettel would have become the WC at COTA, I would probably have lost interest for the next race.

Hamilton and Kovalainen was hardly equal either. And nor should it have been later on with the championship at stake. It doesn't matter if Whitmarsh is honest about it, it's when he holds others to holier than thou standards that he doesn't meet himself.

_________________"Jean Alesi is using the Maginot Line policy-You shall not pass!"-Murray Walker

Well, i don't know if it's funny or not, but what is sure is that sponsoring F1 is business and, in the case of major teams, it's BIG business.

That's why I think all those conspirational theories about sponsors interfering race results or the internal operation of teams are BS. Sponsors are not mega-rich fans of a given driver, they are professional people who are in Formula 1 for promoting worldwide their brands, not for cheering their preferred driver.

Well, i don't know if it's funny or not, but what is sure is that sponsoring F1 is business and, in the case of major teams, it's BIG business.

That's why I think all those conspirational theories about sponsors interfering race results or the internal operation of teams are BS. Sponsors are not mega-rich fans of a given driver, they are professional people who are in Formula 1 for promoting worldwide their brands, not for cheering their preferred driver.

Santander (a Spanish bank) sponsoring Ferrari had everything to do with one driver as opposed to expanding their market of all places in Italy. The return for Santander on their investment is to see Alonso winning the WDC and to this end it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Santander have a say in the strategies Ferrari chooses - especially to benefit that one driver. Given the amount of money that Santander invested in Ferrari, it is quite logical to say that Santander paid for Alonso's drives at Ferrari and Ferrari do need to listen to one of their top investors.

Hamilton and Kovalainen was hardly equal either. And nor should it have been later on with the championship at stake. It doesn't matter if Whitmarsh is honest about it, it's when he holds others to holier than thou standards that he doesn't meet himself.

Not this one again. China 2007 was the penultimate race of the season, long after the Spygate affair had broken and relations between the team and Alonso had broken down. It was hardly a secret that they were barely on speaking terms by then. It's ridiculous to cite this as an example of the lack of driver equality at McLaren.

And as for Kovaleinen, he was simply not as good as Lewis right from the start. That doesn't mean that there was any favouritism. If their performance gap was just down to McLaren favouring Lewis then why would they bother replacing Kovaleinen at all? They could just give him a bit of attention, surely? It's because he was rubbish, that's why.

Nevertheless, Ferrari forgot one thing while putting all their money on Fernando.

It is a racing team with two drivers but they omitted the other driver and as a result had only one driver performing.They realized this (too)late this season and look, Felipe is back taking away points from the competition.The final thing they needed to do was an apology and a renewed contract for Felipe.

i don't get why Ferrari should care about rivals who would be put on the dirty side thanks to the tactics,isn't that all part of the game? i'd think if roles were reversed,Mclaren would want as much rivals on the dirty side as possible.

Thing is, only one guy can win the WDC and when one driver is completely, totally and utterly out of it, and another needs all the help he can get, Ferrari's decision today was 100% logical. They didn't try to hide it, they didn't try to cover their motives, so I can respect that.

I see nothing wrong with it. Massa still had a good day and got to the absolute maximum position he could have; he would never have been allowed pass Alonso.

I agree with this, Ferrari did say we wanted both cars on the clean side of the grid and it worked for both cars. Massa actually lost out less than 5 grid places because of starting on the clean.

Bit rich coming from a Team which has always loved having a No. 1 driver over the years (Senna, Hakkinen, Hamilton).

Does anyone actually pay attention to what Whitmarsh says anyway now he has a love affair with Button as well.

But even if you believe that, those guys established themselves as the prime driver through their own performance against the team mate. I'm quite sure that had their team mate shown signs of being as good, they would have had a dispute over ranking within the team. Masa started the year as a support driver, infact, the year Alonso signed on, and they make it clear that who ever else is there is in the same role.

The irony of is that had Masa been given free reign, it is quite probable Ferrari would be in contention for constructors championship now.

Rubbish. Unless Ferrari had Massa running in the midfield in the early part of the season as some sort of tactic.

Well, i don't know if it's funny or not, but what is sure is that sponsoring F1 is business and, in the case of major teams, it's BIG business.

That's why I think all those conspirational theories about sponsors interfering race results or the internal operation of teams are BS. Sponsors are not mega-rich fans of a given driver, they are professional people who are in Formula 1 for promoting worldwide their brands, not for cheering their preferred driver.

Santander (a Spanish bank) sponsoring Ferrari had everything to do with one driver as opposed to expanding their market of all places in Italy. The return for Santander on their investment is to see Alonso winning the WDC and to this end it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Santander have a say in the strategies Ferrari chooses - especially to benefit that one driver. Given the amount of money that Santander invested in Ferrari, it is quite logical to say that Santander paid for Alonso's drives at Ferrari and Ferrari do need to listen to one of their top investors.

What are you talking about? Santander a Spanish bank? Santander wants to expand in Italy? Sorry, but you have literally no clue. Santander is a worldwide bank of Spanish origins, whose business come from all continents. Spain represents about 10% of its business, its main markets being Brazil, Mexico, Germany, the UK and the USA. By no means thy'd want to increase their market share in Spain (which is already very high) or Italy, given the amounts of bad debts in both countries. Look, Santander being Spanish is no different to Vodafone being British in relationship to Hamilton.

The amoutn oif their investment in Ferrari is on pair with other world leading brand investing in other top teams. See it as what it is: plain business.

Well, i don't know if it's funny or not, but what is sure is that sponsoring F1 is business and, in the case of major teams, it's BIG business.

That's why I think all those conspirational theories about sponsors interfering race results or the internal operation of teams are BS. Sponsors are not mega-rich fans of a given driver, they are professional people who are in Formula 1 for promoting worldwide their brands, not for cheering their preferred driver.

Santander (a Spanish bank) sponsoring Ferrari had everything to do with one driver as opposed to expanding their market of all places in Italy. The return for Santander on their investment is to see Alonso winning the WDC and to this end it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Santander have a say in the strategies Ferrari chooses - especially to benefit that one driver. Given the amount of money that Santander invested in Ferrari, it is quite logical to say that Santander paid for Alonso's drives at Ferrari and Ferrari do need to listen to one of their top investors.

What are you talking about? Santander a Spanish bank? Santander wants to expand in Italy? Sorry, but you have literally no clue. Santander is a worldwide bank of Spanish origins, whose business come from all continents. Spain represents about 10% of its business, its main markets being Brazil, Mexico, Germany, the UK and the USA. By no means thy'd want to increase their market share in Spain (which is already very high) or Italy, given the amounts of bad debts in both countries. Look, Santander being Spanish is no different to Vodafone being British in relationship to Hamilton.

The amoutn oif their investment in Ferrari is on pair with other world leading brand investing in other top teams. See it as what it is: plain business.

We all know that Santander put Alonso @ Ferrari and not Ferrari itself

Whitmarsh made it crystal clear, and for those who followed 2007 season and paid attention to the TR, fernando had been continuously whining for lewis to let him past whenever he was in front even when lewis was leading the championship.

Whitmarsh made it crystal clear, and for those who followed 2007 season and paid attention to the TR, fernando had been continuously whining for lewis to let him past whenever he was in front even when lewis was leading the championship.

The so call great driver

And vice versa with Lewis in Monaco.

As an Alonso fan it was a tough season to watch but it makes me laugh when Lewis is portrayed as some innocent bystander.

Who cuts the checks to the drivers? Ferrari. Who has the most to gain or lose? Ferrari. Who will be around long after either Massa or Alonso have left the sport? Ferrari.

Ferrari made a tactical decision. The best option for Ferrari was to have Alonso as high up the order as possible. It's not about fairness, its about winning, and winning trumps all.

Does anyone really think that Massa would be all hot and bothered about taking it for Ferrari? They just resigned him to a contract...he will do what he is required to do.

+1

What MW says is true but McLaren's stats are not in his favor. He says that McLaren would never pull this kind of thing for a driver and that is why Alonso left. Yes its true, but is that a good thing ? Ferrari's biased treatment has stood the test of time. McLaren's equal treatment policy hasn't fared nearly as well, not in terms of championships anyway. And MW actually wonders why Hamilton is leaving McLaren. If they can't take hard decisions for the sake of the team or its employees then that's their problem.

Sportsmanship ? Where is Red Bull's when they use STR to their advantage ? OK lets leave them out of it. When McLaren were asked whether the F-duct was movable aero they said it was their interpretation that it was not. Obviously many others disagreed. But why was it allowed ? Because it turned out to be legal by the wording of the regulations. It had no regard for the spirit of the rules. So just because McLaren chooses to cover themselves up on the track doesn't mean they are the "good guys".

Alonso likes to be treated better than his teammates, I find that quite normal. His contract is with Ferrari not Massa, who is another employee. In office my target is always to get promoted ahead of my colleagues, not to get equal treatment. Everyone else does the same whether or not they admit it. If the company doesn't treat me as well as I think I deserve then I'll jump ship and if they think I'm not good enough for them they'll fire me. Loyalty works both ways. Its life.

Anyway, the championship situation justified Ferrari's decision, and the results show that it was actually a good decision.

Has it, though? It worked for Schumacher but he was kind of unique anyway, at least in his first incarnation. Since then it hasn't really won them much, has it?

Red Bull claim not to have a clear number one policy; Vettel is simply better than Webber. And it hasn't done them much harm in the last few years with regards to the WDC and in fact has probably helped them considerably when it comes to the WCC

McLaren lost the opportunity to challenge for this year's WDC not because of any driver equality policy but because they have have had generally shocking reliability and team errors throughout the year. If they had gotten their act together from the start then it's highly likely that we would be going into the last race with a three-way finale as a prospect. Lewis has certainly driven as well as the other two contenders and his equipment has generally been competitive all year.

I agree that the results will vindicate any decision that is made. Personally, I think Ferrari made a good decision as some of the people on the dirty side had nightmare starts. Look at Kimi, who is normally a good starter. He went backwards and spent much of the first half of the race playing catch up. Now at least Alonso still has a fighting chance for the title.

It has worked all the way. It worked for Schumacher, worked for Kimi and is now working for Alonso. The only time it didn't work was when Ferrari tried equal treatment with Kimi and Massa. So they reverted back to their old system. Success is a relative term in F1. There's only so much you can influence with driver policy if your car is not up to the mark. For example, over the last 3 years McLaren have been more competitive than Ferrari in terms of the car but McLaren have never come close to winning a title. Ferrari have come very close twice and still has a chance to win a title this season. Maybe that's not all down to driver policy, but some of it is. This season they haven't come close so driver policy doesn't matter but in '10 they could definitely have given Hamilton a good chance. Red Bull can claim whatever they want. Its clear as day that Vettel is their number 1. Webber has even gone on record with it. Anyway their car is good enough and their pitstops/strategies are good enough to make such matters trivial. Right now they are in a class of their own.

Result -wise you can't really attack a biased treatment policy. It has proved too successful for too long. You'd have to bring up sportsmanship, morality and things like that.

For me, its not just the results but also the championship situation that vindicates Ferrari's decision. Even if the plan backfired I would still defend it because it makes sense to me. The clean side of the grid seemed crucial with such a dusty track. The 1 grid place was just an added advantage. Massa is out of the WDC and Ferrari out of the WCC so Alonso's WDC is rightly the sole point of concern.

Edit: I'd also like to add that McLaren has different priorities to other top teams. They prioritizes race wins over title wins. So equal treatment makes sense for them. But if you look back, when they have won titles at recent times they used a biased policy, e.g. Hamilton/Kovalainen and Hakkinen/Coulthard. So what MW says has to be taken into context.

Not sure I'd agree there. It's debatable whether Kimi was ever actually a clear number one driver. Look at USA 2007, where Felipe finished 3rd to Kimi's 4th, or Turkey 2007, where Felipe led a Ferrari 1-2. I don't feel there's any way that Ferrari would allow that to happen with the current setup. They were pretty much treated equally and that helped them win not only the WDC in 2007, and get within a hair's breadth of winning it in 2008, but also the WCC in both those years. They haven't even come close to the WCC since ad for a team like Ferrari I bet that's got to hurt.

As for Red Bull, there's no real evidence that Webber is a number 2 apart from his hissy fit at Silverstone. Even then, there were two sides to that argument as he'd originally rejected the part anyway. Other than that he's been free to race Vettel and has occasionally beaten him; he has only been made to play second fiddle in the last few races when it was clear that Vettel was the only Red Bull driver able to take the fight to Alonso. In fact, most would agree that Mark is not the type to take things lying down and if he felt that he wasn't getting a fair shake of the dice I'm pretty sure we'd hear about it.

McLaren should have won the 2007 WDC and the reason they didn't had nothing to do with their equality policy. Lewis only really needed to finish in the points for the last two races and given his form up to then you would have put money on him walking away with the title. It was silly mistakes which put paid to his title, which was very nearly repeated the following year. And I wouldn't even say that 2008 was a clear number one situation; it was simply that Lewis was much, much better than his team mate. 2008 was hardly an unqualified success for McLaren; Heikki was so poor that he pretty much cost them the WCC.

There's a difference between having a number one driver policy, where they get priority treatment with everything and the second driver has to defer to them both on and off track, to having one driver who is simply faster than his team mate. Vettel is more often than not much faster than Webber and the reason Mark is perceived as a number two is that he just can't take the fight to Seb, that's all. But the Red Bull driver policy has helped net them a hat trick of WCCs as well as at least two WDCs, and quite possibly a third this year. While it's clear at Ferrari that Hell will likely freeze over before they let Felipe challenge Alonso on track. And that has cost them dearly in the Constructor's battle.

Regarding Kimi and Massa in '07, Alonso finished immediately behind Massa twice in '10 (Australia and Turkey). So does that mean there was no favoritism ?

Anyway I think we disagree with the very fundamental issues of driver policies and we also seem to interpret Red Bull very differently. Vettel is clearly better than Webber no doubt. Butt he same is true for Alonso and Massa. Red Bull just has the luxury of a very good car so they are not forced to get their hands dirty like Ferrari.

To me, the result of biased driver policies is quite clear in terms of results. Sportsmanship and image are really more vague subjects for me.

Wheres the "swipe" I agree with everything Whitmarsh said and I completely understand why Ferrari did what they did and while not being 100% comfortable with it I know it is the way Ferrari have always been. Certainly for as long as I have been watching F1.

Founded in Spain, based in Spain, headquarters in Spain. What are you talking about?

I am talking about a Company whose Spanish affairs are less than 1/6 of their operations and which is listed in all main stock markets around the globe. Where they origineted is pretty irrelevant. Let me put you an example: let's imagine that Nokia starts sponsoring Lotus. Do you think this would be because they are fans of Finn Kimi Räikkönen or just because F1 is a good method of promoting an international brand? If F1 sponsors were only seeking their domestic market increase, specially in the case of big multinational brands like Santander, don't you think it would be an incredibly expensive marketing action? Because you would be paying for the price of a worlwide show and getting the results only in a tiny fraction of the world. Not really sensible, don't you think?

Even more: Santander is not only a worldwide Company, it's a BANK. Have you ever dealt with a bank? Have you ever asked for a loan? If yes, did you get the impression that they were people wanting to spend money on their favourite sport hero just for the sake of seeing him winning? What do you think that Santander international members of its Board of the Directors would think about it?

No, Santander is in F1 for promoting its brand, not just because they are fans of Alonso. Sponsoring Ferrari is wet dream for every marketing manager in the world because of its international image of success and the magic of its name.

Well, i don't know if it's funny or not, but what is sure is that sponsoring F1 is business and, in the case of major teams, it's BIG business.

That's why I think all those conspirational theories about sponsors interfering race results or the internal operation of teams are BS. Sponsors are not mega-rich fans of a given driver, they are professional people who are in Formula 1 for promoting worldwide their brands, not for cheering their preferred driver.

Santander (a Spanish bank) sponsoring Ferrari had everything to do with one driver as opposed to expanding their market of all places in Italy. The return for Santander on their investment is to see Alonso winning the WDC and to this end it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Santander have a say in the strategies Ferrari chooses - especially to benefit that one driver. Given the amount of money that Santander invested in Ferrari, it is quite logical to say that Santander paid for Alonso's drives at Ferrari and Ferrari do need to listen to one of their top investors.

What are you talking about? Santander a Spanish bank? Santander wants to expand in Italy? Sorry, but you have literally no clue. Santander is a worldwide bank of Spanish origins, whose business come from all continents. Spain represents about 10% of its business, its main markets being Brazil, Mexico, Germany, the UK and the USA. By no means thy'd want to increase their market share in Spain (which is already very high) or Italy, given the amounts of bad debts in both countries. Look, Santander being Spanish is no different to Vodafone being British in relationship to Hamilton.

The amoutn oif their investment in Ferrari is on pair with other world leading brand investing in other top teams. See it as what it is: plain business.

We all know that Santander put Alonso @ Ferrari and not Ferrari itself

I didn't know that and I wonder how you came to this conclusion. Please provide some facts that sustain this bold information. And I said FACTS, not speculations.

Founded in Spain, based in Spain, headquarters in Spain. What are you talking about?

I am talking about a Company whose Spanish affairs are less than 1/6 of their operations and which is listed in all main stock markets around the globe. Where they origineted is pretty irrelevant. Let me put you an example: let's imagine that Nokia starts sponsoring Lotus. Do you think this would be because they are fans of Finn Kimi Räikkönen or just because F1 is a good method of promoting an international brand? If F1 sponsors were only seeking their domestic market increase, specially in the case of big multinational brands like Santander, don't you think it would be an incredibly expensive marketing action? Because you would be paying for the price of a worlwide show and getting the results only in a tiny fraction of the world. Not really sensible, don't you think?

Even more: Santander is not only a worldwide Company, it's a BANK. Have you ever dealt with a bank? Have you ever asked for a loan? If yes, did you get the impression that they were people wanting to spend money on their favourite sport hero just for the sake of seeing him winning? What do you think that Santander international members of its Board of the Directors would think about it?

No, Santander is in F1 for promoting its brand, not just because they are fans of Alonso. Sponsoring Ferrari is wet dream for every marketing manager in the world because of its international image of success and the magic of its name.

I'm confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing that it is a Spanish bank?

Founded in Spain, based in Spain, headquarters in Spain. What are you talking about?

I am talking about a Company whose Spanish affairs are less than 1/6 of their operations and which is listed in all main stock markets around the globe. Where they origineted is pretty irrelevant. Let me put you an example: let's imagine that Nokia starts sponsoring Lotus. Do you think this would be because they are fans of Finn Kimi Räikkönen or just because F1 is a good method of promoting an international brand? If F1 sponsors were only seeking their domestic market increase, specially in the case of big multinational brands like Santander, don't you think it would be an incredibly expensive marketing action? Because you would be paying for the price of a worlwide show and getting the results only in a tiny fraction of the world. Not really sensible, don't you think?

Even more: Santander is not only a worldwide Company, it's a BANK. Have you ever dealt with a bank? Have you ever asked for a loan? If yes, did you get the impression that they were people wanting to spend money on their favourite sport hero just for the sake of seeing him winning? What do you think that Santander international members of its Board of the Directors would think about it?

No, Santander is in F1 for promoting its brand, not just because they are fans of Alonso. Sponsoring Ferrari is wet dream for every marketing manager in the world because of its international image of success and the magic of its name.

I'm confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing that it is a Spanish bank?

Regarding Kimi and Massa in '07, Alonso finished immediately behind Massa twice in '10 (Australia and Turkey). So does that mean there was no favoritism ?

Anyway I think we disagree with the very fundamental issues of driver policies and we also seem to interpret Red Bull very differently. Vettel is clearly better than Webber no doubt. Butt he same is true for Alonso and Massa. Red Bull just has the luxury of a very good car so they are not forced to get their hands dirty like Ferrari.

To me, the result of biased driver policies is quite clear in terms of results. Sportsmanship and image are really more vague subjects for me.

Touche, although it's possible that team orders didn't exist before Alonso began to stamp his authority on things. Aus was only the second race of the season after all and as for Turkey, Massa was comfortably ahead of Alonso as the latter was stuck behind another car until the closing laps. Massa would pretty much have had to park to let Alonso past him there.

My point on Red Bull is that there is no evidence of any number one and two status, unless you count Vettel winning all the time as evidence. When Mark is good, he's very good but more often than not he's nowhere near Seb. Red Bull themselves deny any such driver policy and I don't remember any "Vettel is faster than you" moment in any race where both drivers were in with a shout of the WDC. Contrast that with Ferrari where there is little doubt of Massa's status within the team. Yes, Alonso is faster anyway but Massa is not even allowed to compete with him, while Mark was leading Seb pretty much until the summer break.

I'm not knocking Ferrari for doing what they do overall but I do question that it's the best for the team. Red bull have arguably shown that having two strong drivers is better overall than having a solitary one. Vettel doesn't seem to need Webber to move over for him and neither does Lewis need Button to do the same, and as a result both teams have usually been much stronger in the WCC without sacrificing anything in the WDC as a result. In fact, if it wasn't for McLaren's crap reliability in the second half of this year (which has nothing to do with driver policy) they would be comfortably ahead of Ferrari and knocking on Red Bull's door for the WCC, as well as being in contention for the WDC, so on balance equal driver policy seems a far better bet.

Bit rich coming from a Team which has always loved having a No. 1 driver over the years (Senna, Hakkinen, Hamilton).

Does anyone actually pay attention to what Whitmarsh says anyway now he has a love affair with Button as well.

But even if you believe that, those guys established themselves as the prime driver through their own performance against the team mate. I'm quite sure that had their team mate shown signs of being as good, they would have had a dispute over ranking within the team. Masa started the year as a support driver, infact, the year Alonso signed on, and they make it clear that who ever else is there is in the same role.

The irony of is that had Masa been given free reign, it is quite probable Ferrari would be in contention for constructors championship now.

Rubbish. Unless Ferrari had Massa running in the midfield in the early part of the season as some sort of tactic.

Massa was garbage up until Monza.

Mr Furball (what a fitting name)Massa was never garbage. He was ignored. There is just one place who can do such a thing, that is Ferrari.

Whitmarsh made it crystal clear, and for those who followed 2007 season and paid attention to the TR, fernando had been continuously whining for lewis to let him past whenever he was in front even when lewis was leading the championship.

The so call great driver

Yeah, i so agree. Alonso might be the greatest of all greats. There is just one thing he lacks, manners. Alonso bitched at Renault when he was close to losing. He angered and squeled on McLaren when they did not let him past. He knew Piquet was about to crash that day and he took over Ferrari in a sense of not supporting more than one driver. That strategy has been costly for Ferrari this year.